|
Continued from Page 2
July 1, 1920 New York Times:
“I.R.T. FUNDS FOR BUS LINES.; $1,000,000 Suit Says
Shonts Violated Franchise Agreement.
“Papers showing that Theodore P. Shonts was defendant
in a suit for $1,000,000 in Nassau County when he died were filed in court
yesterday by the Guaranty Trust Company, temporary administrator, in
connection with the application of Mrs. Shonts for $100,000 under her
husband’s will.
“The suit against Shonts was brought by Roland R.
Conklin. He alleges that Shonts had an agreement with him covering
franchises for buses of the New York Motor Bus Company and of the Chicago
Motor Bus Company, and that in violation of the agreement Shonts formed the
Fifth Avenue Coach Corporation in New York and the Chicago Stage Company
with the funds of the Interborough.”
From The Modern Motor Truck by Victor Wilfred Page, pub 1921:
“A motor bus with a covered upper deck has made its
appearance in Chicago as a part of the fleet of the Chicago Motor Bus Co. It
is shown in Fig. 32, C, and differs radically in construction from the New
York or Paris types of bus. The description which follows is taken from
"Automotive Industries." Mechanically, it is the same as those that have
been operated there for the past three years. Like the older type, it has
the front wheel drive, the floor on a level with the curbing for convenience
and speed in taking on and off passengers, and the covered straight stairway
that is safer than the winding and exposed one. The difference lies in the
covered top with glass windows in the sides, and in the seating capacity.
Whereas the older type of vehicle would accommodate 51 passengers with
seats, the new bus seats 60. Instead of the 22 enclosed downstairs seats in
the old style bus, there are 60 enclosed and protected seats, 24 below and
36 above.
“The length of the car is 25 feet, the width 7 feet 6
inches, and the height from roadway when unloaded, 12 feet 11 inches, and 12
feet 8 inches when filled. The wheel base is 176 inches, height of the lower
deck from the roadway being 12½ inches. Both decks are lighted electrically
by current from a generator driven by the engine. The vehicle is heated by
exhaust gases from the engine, which pass through pipes placed near the
floor in the lower interior of the car. The front tires are
6-inch singles, while those in the rear of the same size are duals. The
power unit is the American Motor Bus Company standard type of front wheel
drive, made detachable and with a constant mesh transmission. The worm drive
also is used. The brakes act on the rear wheels and have approximately 500
square inches of braking surface. However, the salient feature of the new
bus is the roof over the upper deck. This cover is light and is not too high
to easily clear elevated structures and trolleys under which it must pass.
Because of the low level of the upper deck the center of gravity in relation
to the roadway is low, thus minimizing unpleasant swaying.
“The front wheel drive and low hung body make the
stepless feature possible. It allows the passenger to enter or leave the bus
directly from the surface of the sidewalk. The only steps in the vehicle are
those leading to the upper deck. They are straight and enclosed.”
Journal of the Western Society of Engineers, February 1921 issue:
“American Motor Bus Corporation
“Harold Almert, M. W. S. E., Consulting Engineer, has
recently submitted a report on the American Motor Bus Corporation and the
Chicago Motor Bus Company, and the business of the two concerns has been
taken over by The Lake Shore Motor Bus Corporation, a holding company.
“The American Motor Bus Corporation, the manufacturing
concern, has resumed the manufacture of front wheel drive, stepless type,
motor busses and are bringing out a new double deck bus with a seating
capacity of sixty passengers, with both upper and lower decks fully
enclosed. The initial order will keep the factory operating at full capacity
for the year 1921.
“The Chicago Motor Bus Company, which operates a fleet
of motor busses over the boulevards of the north side of Chicago, serving a
territory which cannot be reached by the surface and elevated railways, has
obtained an amendment to its franchise permitting the operation of the new
enclosed top bus and will increase its service on the north side and shortly
start operation on the south side, together with through routes between the
north and south sides.”
March 5, 1921 Public Works:
“The Lake Shore Motor Bus Corporation, a holding
company, has taken over the business of the American Motor Bus Corporation
and the Chicago Motor Bus Company.”
Prospectus for Lake Shore Motor Bus Corp. in 1922 Fitch Bond Book:
“LAKE SHORE MOTOR BUS CORP.
“1st & Coll. Tr. S. F. 8s. Due Dec. 1, 1935.
Dated Dec. 1, 1920. Interest payable June 1 and Dec. 1,
at Central Trust Co., of Chicago. Illinois.
Tax Status—2% Federal Income Tax paid by the company
without deduction.
Authorized $1,500,000;
Outstanding $750,000; Reserved for Corp. Purposes $750,000
Purpose of Issue—Issued In connection with the acquisition of the securities
and properties by the lien of this mortgage
Denominations—Coupon $100, $500 and $1,000.
Trustee—Central Trust Co. of Chicago Illinois.
Redeemable at 102½ and interest on any interest date upon 30 days' notice.
Sinking Fund—Annually beginning 1923 within B0 days
after the date on which Its fiscal year ends, a sum equal to 25% of the
Company's not earnings after deducting Interest charges and taxes for such
year. The sinking fund payment shall be determined by an audit of the
Company's affairs, made by a certified accountant selected or approved by
the trustee.
This fund is to be applied to the purchase or redemption of this issue at not
over 102½ and interest. Bonds so acquired to be cancelled.
“Organization—Organized In 1921 to acquire all of the
stock of the Chicago Motor Bus Co. all of the property or stock of
the American Motor Bus Corp.
“Capitalization Outstanding:
Common $750,000;
Funded debt $750,000
“Secured by pledge of all of the stock (except
qualifying shares) of the Chicago Motor Bus Co. - and by a mortgage on the
fixed property of, or all of the stock (except qualifying shares) of
the American Motor Bus Corp. free of any lien on the properties and
equipment (unless such lien or liens are deposited with the trustee) and by
a first mortgage on all real estate owned or to be acquired by the Lake
Shore Motor Bus Corp.
“The Chicago Motor Bus Co. owns and operates 40 buses In Chicago.
“In June 1916 the Chicago Motor Bus Company was granted
a franchise for a term of 20 years by the Commissioners of Lincoln Park, to
operate its buses upon certain of the boulevards, parkways and streets of
the North Side of Chicago; and In April, 1917. It received a Certificate of
Necessity and Convenience from the State Public Utilities Commission
governing these routes.
“In March, 1917, it secured from the South Park
Commissioners a franchise for a term of 20 years, to operate its buses upon
certain of the boulevards, parkways and streets of the South Side. As
provided in these franchises. It has deposited $25,000 both with the Lincoln
Park and South Park Commissioners.
The American Motor Bus Co. builds the cars for the Chicago Motor Bus Co.
“The Company and its subsidiaries own two modern,
fire-proof buildings, the garage on Broadway, and the Operating Department
on Rosemont Avenue, and have arranged to acquire a site for a new terminal
on Clark Street near Wilson Avenue.
“With the completion of the present financing (as of
March, 1921), there will be available a fleet of 57 buses, including 26 of
the Sixty-Passenger All-Year Type, the latest development of the Motor Bus
Industry.
| Year ended Dec. 31: |
Gross. |
Net. |
| 1921 |
$792,060 |
$182,686 |
“Original Market — $750,000 offered Feb., 1921, by The Stanwood Co.,
Chicago.”
January 1922 Bus Transportation:
“Inclosed upper deck improves earning capacity in
inclement and cold weather. Seats sixty with weight of only 192 lb. per
seat. Company operates 1,600,000 bus-miles a year and hauls 7,500,000
passengers.; Details of Equipment and Cost of Operation of Double-Deck Buses
in Chicago
“HAVING been lifted from the receivership and
reorganized with the Lake Shore Motor Bus Corporation as a holding company,
the Chicago Motor Bus Company, which operates fifty-one buses over the north
shore drives between the Loop and Devon Avenue, has purchased twenty-five
buses of a new type from the American Motor Bus Corporation. The latter is
the bus manufacturing subsidiary of the same holding company. One bus of
this new type was in experimental use for about a year before it was decided
to adopt this design. It proved to be much better as a revenue producer than
the older open-top buses and hence the new buses of this type were purchased
this year. Ten of these are now in service and others are being built.
“A comparison of the earnings of the experimental bus
of this type with the average earnings of the three leading and three
following buses of the open-top type is given in an accompanying table. In
earnings per mile the inclosed-top averaged 16.84 per cent better than the
open-top buses; the gain was 1.26 cents for the closed-top, in earnings per
seat-mile.
“The features of the new bus are its large seating
capacity, inclosed upper deck and low weight per seat. It seats twenty-six
passengers on the lower deck and thirty-four on the upper deck, making a
total of sixty. Its total scale weight is 11,500 lb., including 240 lb. of
gasoline, or a gross weight of 192 lb. per seat. About 7,500 lb. of this is
in the chassis and 4,000 lb. in the body.
“With this new type of bus, the tractor type of power
plant used heretofore and having the entire driving mechanism mounted on the
front axle is continued. It is only by virtue of this design that the
inclosed upper deck could be built within the limits of headroom imposed.
The engine used is a 35hp. Moline-Knight manufactured by the R. & V. Motor
Company, Moline, Ill. The height of this bus from road to top of roof is 13
ft. It is 25 ft. 6 in. long over all, has a 14-ft. 6 3/16-in. wheelbase and an
overhang at the rear of 7 ft. 9 in.
“The width over all is 7 ft. 6 in. at the rear,
tapering for appearance to 7 ft. at the front. The arrangement of seats and
other details are shown in the accompanying drawings. The headroom required
for the driver is secured by a box in the floor of the upper deck, over
which the center seats at the front end are placed so that practically no
space is lost as the result of this allowance for the driver.
“The great advantage of the inclosed upper deck bus is
obviously the fact that in rainy and cold weather the capacity of the bus is
the same as it is in pleasant weather. That this is true is clearly
reflected in the comparative figures presented here. The desirability for
large seating capacity lies in the fact that the traffic handled is largely
longhaul, with comparatively few stops per mile. Thus far, the limit of
riding has been the limit of bus capacity, and on account of the long haul
and infrequent stops, therefore, it is more economical to handle the people
in larger units.
“The first type of bus built for the Chicago Motor Bus
Company seated thirty-eight people and weighed 16,800 lb. empty. The next
type seated thirty-eight people and weighed 12,600 lb. The third design
seated thirty-nine and weighed 10,500 lb., while the more recently built
open-top buses seat fifty-two people and weigh 11,000 lb.
"In addition to the sixty-seat inclosed upper-deck buses
now being built, an experimental bus of an entirely different design is
under construction. This is to be a bus with conventional rear-axle drive,
which makes necessary an open-top body. The new body, however, is expected
to seat sixty-eight people with a weight of about 175 lb. per seat, the
maximum allowable total weight being 12,500 lb. The floor will be 29 in.
above the pavement when the bus is empty. In trying out this type, the
company is not necessarily abandoning the idea of the inclosed upper deck,
but is determining whether the added capacity of this open-type bus will
offset the loss of traffic in bad weather, in comparison with the showing of
the closed-top bus. If this new large-capacity open-top bus compares
favorably in earning capacity with the new closed-top bus, there will
probably be a tendency to revert to the rear-drive bus on account of its
simpler maintenance. Still another design of bus has been made in
anticipation of a permit to operate a short-haul bus line in Chicago. The
petition for this permit specifies a line running south from Fullerton
Avenue on Lincoln Parkway and Clark Street along the west side of Lincoln
Park, over North Avenue to Lake Shore Drive and thence downtown, with
alternate buses running to the Northwestern and Union depots on the West
Side, and to the Illinois Central depot at Twelfth Street and Michigan
Avenue. This line is expected to carry many short riders to and from the
rapidly growing Upper Michigan Avenue district which lies just north of the
river. The bus designed for this service is a single-deck, one-man type. The
general appearance and seating arrangement are shown in the accompany
drawings. The seating capacity is thirty and the weight will run about 7,200
lb. A particular feature is the 15-in. step from pavement to bus floor. This
is made possible by raising the floor over the rear axle 10 in. The five
rear seats are thus elevated 10 in. above the forward eight seats. This bus
will also have a rear-axle drive.
“C.O. Ball, general manager and chief engineer, American
Motor Bus Corporation, is responsible for the designs of bus being utilized
by the Chicago Motor Bus Company, of which W. J. Sherwood is general
superintendent in charge of operation. The two companies are headed by H. H.
Jackson, president.
“Construction Details Of Inclosed Top Bus
“The body of the inclosed upperdeck bus pictured here
is made entirely of elm wood, except for the steel underframe and the No. 16
gage aluminum side sheathing, which has some gusset effect. The earlier
buses were built without underframes, and the results were not satisfactory.
The new bus bodies are therefore mounted on an underframe consisting of two
6-in., 10 1/2-lb. channels extending the full length of the body with an upward
bend to clear the rear axle and tied together with 6-in. 8-lb. channel iron crossmembers. These longitudinal channels are reinforced at the front end by
an outer pressing of 6 3/4 x 3 x 3/16-in. steel, and by an inner pressing of 5
x 2 x 7/16-in. steel, running back to the front hanger of the rear spring.
Cross sills of 3 x 4-in. wood, spaced at the same distance as the side
posts, are clamped to the underframe by U-bolts and a steel strap over the
top of the sill, no bolts or holes of any kind passing through the sills. A
2 x 2 1/2-in. longitudinal sill, or base rail, is laid on top of the main
cross-sills and the flooring on the lower deck is fastened up to the base
rail and down onto filler pieces inserted between the cross-sills, the 5/8 x
4-in. tongue and grooved pine or fir floor boards running crosswise. The
side posts are then doweled into the base rail at 25-in. centers.
“Particular attention is directed to the dimensioning
of the side posts, a detail drawing of which is reproduced. These side posts
must not only support the superstructure, but must carry a live load on the
upper deck of 5,000 lb. or more. The posts seem to have a light section, yet
despite this, the bus company claims that the maintenance cost on these
bodies has been very low.
“The strength in this design is derived from the
box-like construction into which the longitudinal members are mortised.
These are joined with the side posts, so that the maximum unsupported length
of the side posts is 19 3/4 in., which is at the lower window level. The first
tie between posts above the floor is the 7/8 x 7-in. seat panelboard which is
halved into the posts and runs the full length of the body. A 3 x 5-in.
board at the same level is screwed to the posts on the inside to form the
seat support, this also tying the posts together. The belt rail, consisting
of a 3 1/2 x 2-in. wood member, is cut out around the posts and securely
fastened to them. The posts are again tied together and supported by the 5/8 x
1 3/4-in. lower rail of the upper sash, and by the 7/8 x 5 3/8-in. upper sideboard.
The carlines or cross-members which brace the upper
deck are slightly arched, and both the posts and carlines are halved and the
latter laid on top of the posts. The main carlines at the post are made 1
7/8
in. deep by 1 1/4-in. wide, while intermediate carlines, 1 1/8 x
7/8-in., are
provided. The main carlines are braced at each post by a supporting piece at
a point 15 in. from the side post, reducing the length of the unsupported
arch by 30 in. and thus enabling the use of the light section in the
carlines. A layer of 3/8-in. Haskelite is laid on the carlines and screwed and
glued to them. The floor strips for the upper deck are then laid directly on
the Haskelite and screwed to the Haskelite and to each of the carlines, a
templet being used to locate the screws so that they do not foul against the
screws holding the Haskelite to the carlines.
“The upper side posts are made of 2 x 1 7/8-in. section,
doweled into the base rail extending along the side of the body over the top
of the lower posts. These upper parts are supported with longitudinal ties
similar to the box construction described for the lower posts. The upper
carlines forming the arched roof measure 1 1/8 x 7/8-in. The roof laid on top of
these consists of 3/8-in. Agasote, which is put on in two pieces and painted,
but no canvas is used. The edges of the roof are rounded off by using
aluminum plates and steel corners. The aluminum used in the roof is largely
made up from scraps from the side sheathing.
“The windows in the upper deck drop, while those for
the lower deck raise. No catches and no handles are provided on the windows.
They are simply fitted with Edwards antirattlers at the top and bottom of
each side, and then gaps are left in the side guards. The anti-rattlers snap
into these gaps as the window is moved, hold it at any one of three levels
and at the same time prevent rattling. A piece across the top of the upper
windows serves as a good arm rest when the window is lowered and makes a
good handle to lift the window.
“One of the most interesting features of the bus, from
the standpoint of light weight, is that the seat complete weighs only 8 lb.
These are stationary seats made with 7/8-in. frame and 3/8-in. slats. The two
side frames and center frame, or legs, are screwed and glued together and
the slats screwed to them, this work being done entirely at the
manufacturing plant of the American Motor Bus Corporation.
“Cost Of Operation
“The accompanying operating statements of the Chicago
Motor Bus Company are of particular interest inasmuch as the figures for
revenue and expenses cover a business nearly five years old and now
involving a mileage of more than 1,500,000 a year and an annual haul of more
than 7,500,000 passengers. An accumulative statement made out in
considerable detail covering the operations of the company from its
beginning, March 25, 1917, to Oct. 31, 1921, shows how the various detail
cost figures will run when averaged over a long period with fluctuating
markets and labor costs and varying operating conditions. Another statement
for the twelve-month period ending Oct. 31, 1921, gives a good idea of the
present operating details. Of course it must be remembered that these
figures cover the operation of large double-deck buses and that neither the
earnings nor operating costs can be compared with single-deck bus operation.
“Operations of the Chicago Motor Bus Company, begun in
March, 1917, and continued to date, have undoubtedly contributed materially
to the rapid growth and development of uptown Chicago, the Wilson Avenue
district on the North Side, and the intervening territory served. This
transportation has also been a factor in the remarkable improvement of the
upper Michigan Avenue district just north of the Chicago River, for this is
the only regular transportation available in this section. But like many new
transportation agencies, the Chicago Motor Bus Company has had to await
development of the business through several years to bring it to a
financially successful enterprise. The double-deck, fifty-one and
sixty-seat, two-man buses used are operated from the Loop northward over
Michigan Avenue and the North Side lake shore boulevard. Some of the buses
are run through Devon Avenue, a one-way trip of 9.5 miles. Others are turned
back at the Edgewater Beach Hotel, 7.9 miles; at Wilson Avenue and Clark
Street, 7.6 miles; and at Wilson and Sheridan, 7 miles. A few trips are also
turned back short of these points. The headway maintained from the Loop
varies from seven and one-half minutes to two minutes. The rate of fare from
the beginning has been 10 cents flat.
“Owing to its early financial difficulties, the company
has been unable to expand its facilities as rapidly as the growth in its
business would have warranted, and the amount of business handled has been
for the most part limited, therefore, in the last two years, only by the
capacity of the buses. The increasing use of these transportation facilities
is illustrated by the accompanying graph of passengers per month since the
beginning, and by the table showing the increase in per cent of the total
seating capacity sold—an increase that is marked despite increased service
both as to number of buses and seating capacity. The passenger earnings per
bus-mile have increased from 30.46 cents in 1917, which was less than the
operating cost, to 48.42 cents for the first ten months of 1921. This latter
figure will come down slightly when the months of November and December are
included, so that the revenue for the full calendar year of 1921 will be
about 48 cents per busmile. For the twelve months ended Oct. 31, 1921, the
passenger revenue was 47.02 cents per bus-mile, with miscellaneous revenue
bringing the total up to 47.94 cents. Against this, the company in the same
period had to pay operating costs, taxes, and fixed charges of 41.68 cents,
leaving a profit of 6.2 cents per busmile available for dividends.
“It will be noted that this net income is considerably
better than the average to date covering the total period of operation,
which shows a net income of only 1.47 cents per bus-mile. From this same
accumulative statement, it is seen that the passenger's 10-cent fare is
distributed 3.41 cents for maintenance and depreciation, 1.03 cents for
gasoline, 3.41 cents for conducting transportation, 1.08 cents for general
and miscellaneous, and 0.70 cents for taxes and income deductions, leaving a
net income available for paying dividends of 0.37 cent per fare collected.
“An earning capacity even better than the 6.25 cents
per bus-mile realized during the twelve months ended Oct. 31, 1921, is
expected in the future as the magnitude of the business increases and the
more efficient maintenance program and rehabilitation now under way becomes
completely effective. That improvement along this line is being made is
evidenced by the fact that maintenance of equipment in November, 1920, cost
12.14 cents per bus-mile, while in November, 1921, it cost only 7.99 cents.
Similarly the number of road failures has been reduced from an average of
eight a day up to April, 1921, to one a day at present. Important items
contributing to this improvement are the substitution of 16-in. diameter
Borg & Beck clutches for 12-in. clutches, certain changes in the gear box
worked out by the company and also adopted by the manufacturers, exchange of
the cast iron hub caps, through which the power is transmitted to the axle in
the tractor-type power units used, to cast-steel caps, etc.
“With the overhaul completed on the remaining fifteen
buses, the road failures and maintenance costs are expected to be still
further reduced. Thirty-five of the fifty driving units had been rebuilt at
the time of this writing. In the future each bus will be given a thorough
inspection every 2,000 miles, a partial overhaul semiannually, and a
complete overhaul once a year. The last will include new pistons and sleeves
for the Knight engines, as this is said to make them practically as good as
new again. For this reason, and because they believe the Knight engine
operates with more uniform efficiency than poppet valve engines, the
management of the Chicago Motor Bus Company is strong for this type of power
plant. The power units now in use are the same ones purchased in 1917,
except for the improvements that have been incorporated.
“It will be seen from the accumulative statement that
engine maintenance and body maintenance have run about equal—just about 1
cent per mile each. The item of 3.71 cents per mile for repairs to running
gear, which includes the maintenance of the transmission and driving
mechanism, clutch, brakes, etc., is high, and it is expected that the
improvements already mentioned that are under way will have a very desirable
effect on this cost item. Lubrication costs, which have averaged 0.54 cent
per bus-mile, are being substantially reduced also; for example, the cost
for lubrication in October, 1921, was 0.32 cent per mile. The single item of
fuel runs just about 4 cents per bus-mile, and tires a little more than 2
cents a mile. Solid tires are used altogether.
“The average accumulative figure for the total cost of
conducting transportation is 13.52 cents per bus-mile, of which 9.88 cents
is for wages of drivers and conductors. For the twelve months ended Oct. 31
the total cost of conducting transportation was 14.81 cents per bus-mile and
approximately 11 cents of this was for busmen's wages. The present scale is
65 cents an hour maximum.”
TABLE I—DATA SHOWING INCREASING USE OF CHICAGO BUSES
|
|
Round Trips |
Average Seats Per Round Trip |
Per Cent of Seating Capacity Used |
Passengers per Bus-Mile |
|
1918 |
74,714 |
102 |
56.34 |
3.238 |
|
1919 |
79,994 |
102 |
69.99 |
4.091 |
|
1920 |
78,708 |
103 |
74.99 |
4.423 |
|
1921* |
91,187 |
106.5 |
78.30 |
4.842 |
|
*Eleven months. |
TABLE II—STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS CHICAGO MOTOR BUS
COMPANY
FOR TWELVE MONTHS ENDED OCT. 31, 1921
| Gross Earnings |
|
|
|
| |
|
Actual |
Bus-Mile (in cents) |
| Transportation revenue |
$ |
755,230 |
47.02 |
| Special bus revenue |
$ |
577 |
0.04 |
| Advertising revenue |
|
10,595 |
0.66 |
| Total operating revenue |
$ |
766,402 |
47.72 |
| Non-operating revenue |
$ |
3,539 |
0.22 |
| Total revenue |
$ |
769,941 |
47.94 |
| |
|
|
|
| Operating Expenses |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| Maintenance of way and structures |
$ |
3,168 |
00.20 |
| Maintenance of equipment |
$ |
164,703 |
10.26 |
| Depreciation reserve |
$ |
51,339 |
3.20 |
| Gasoline expense |
$ |
63,688 |
3.97 |
| Conducting transportation |
$ |
237,974 |
14.81 |
| General and miscellaneous expenses |
$ |
87,188 |
5.42 |
| |
|
|
|
| Total operating expenses |
$ |
608,060 |
37.86 |
| Net earnings |
$ |
161,881 |
10.08 |
| |
|
|
|
| Fixed charges |
|
|
|
| Taxes |
$ |
38,999 |
2.43 |
| Interest on funded debt |
$ |
2,480 |
0.16 |
| Interest on unfunded debt |
$ |
19,797 |
1.23 |
| Total fixed charges |
$ |
61,276 |
3.82 |
| |
|
|
|
| Net income |
$ |
100,605 |
6.26 |
| Revenue bus-miles |
$ |
1,606,078 |
|
TABLE III—ACCUMULATIVE OPERATING STATEMENT CHICAGO
MOTOR BUS COMPANY FROM MARCH 25, 1917, TO OCT. 31. 1921
| |
|
Actual |
per bus-mile (in cents) |
per passenger carried (in cents) |
| Maintenance of way and structures |
$ |
9,060 |
0.13 |
0.03 |
| Maintenance of equipment |
|
|
|
|
| Superintendence |
$ |
43,513 |
0.64 |
|
| Repairs to bodies |
$ |
65,713 |
0.97 |
|
| Repairs to running gear |
$ |
251,842 |
3.71 |
|
| Repairs to engines |
$ |
65,108 |
0.96 |
|
| Repairs to electrical equipment |
$ |
35,987 |
0.53 |
|
| Repairs to service equipment |
$ |
16,188 |
0.24 |
|
| Miscellaneous shop expenses |
$ |
65,776 |
0.97 |
|
| Tires (reserve) |
$ |
143,322 |
2.11 |
|
| Total |
$ |
687,449 |
10.13 |
2.56 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Depreciation |
$ |
219,256 |
3.23 |
0.82 |
| Gasoline |
$ |
276,862 |
4.08 |
1.03 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Conducting transportation |
|
|
|
|
| Superintendence |
$ |
59,820 |
0.88 |
|
| Conductors and drivers |
$ |
670,817 |
9.88 |
|
| Misc. transportation expenses |
$ |
46,660 |
0.54 |
|
| Lubricants |
$ |
36,391 |
0.54 |
|
| Garage employees' expenses |
$ |
103,662 |
1.53 |
|
| Station expenses |
$ |
10,171 |
0.15 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Total |
$ |
917,521 |
13.52 |
3.41 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| General and miscellaneous |
|
|
|
|
| Officers' salaries and expenses |
$ |
50,023 |
0.74 |
|
| Office salaries and expenses |
$ |
40,356 |
0.59 |
|
| Miscellaneous expenses |
$ |
44,961 |
0.66 |
|
| Injuries and damages |
$ |
75,406 |
1.13 |
|
| Insurance |
$ |
41,451 |
0.61 |
|
| Stationery and printing |
$ |
10,884 |
0.16 |
|
| Storeroom expenses |
$ |
20,947 |
0.31 |
|
| Law expenses |
$ |
5,363 |
0.08 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Total |
$ |
290,391 |
4.28 |
1.08 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Total operating expenses |
$ |
2,400,539 |
35.37 |
8.93 |
| Total taxes |
$ |
119,609 |
1.76 |
0.45 |
| Income deductions |
$ |
67,803 |
1.00 |
0.25 |
| Total deductions |
$ |
2,587,951 |
38.13 |
9.63 |
| |
|
|
|
|
| Passenger revenue |
|
|
|
|
| 1917 |
$ |
307,776 |
30.46 |
|
| 1918 |
$ |
457,137 |
32.38 |
|
| 1919 |
$ |
606,037 |
40.91 |
|
| 1920 |
$ |
639,547 |
44.23 |
|
| 1921 (Ten months) |
$ |
677,484 |
48.42 |
|
| Total |
$ |
2,687,961 |
39.60 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| Net income |
$ |
100,010 |
1.47 |
|
| Revenue bus-miles |
|
6,786,900 |
|
|
| Revenue bus-hours |
|
640,512 |
|
|
| Revenue per bus-hour |
$ |
4.196 |
|
|
| Gallons of gasoline |
|
1,269,580 |
|
|
| Average miles per gallon |
|
5.31 |
|
|
| Average buses in service |
|
35.00 |
|
|
February 1922 Bus Transportation:
“Ten More Buses for Chicago
“At the annual meeting of the board of directors of the
Chicago Motor Bus Company, it was decided to order ten more buses of the
sixty-seat inclosed upper-deck type, described in the January issue of
Bus Transportation, and equipped with the tractor type power plant and
Knight motor. These buses will be built by the American Motor
Bus Corporation, Chicago, which now also has under construction for the
Chicago Motor Bus Company, a sixty-eight seat open-top bus with conventional
rear axle drive. . With these eleven additional buses completed, the
equipment of the bus company will include sixty-three buses. The ten
recently ordered are expected to be completed in April.”
May 1922 Bus Transportation:
“New Bus Weighs 157 lb. per Seat
“IN PREPARATION for the possible extension of service
to the South Side, where the clearances will not permit the use of the
inclosed upper-deck type bus used on the North Side, the Chicago Motor Bus
Company has recently placed in operation a sample bus of new design which
sets up a new low record for vehicle weight per seat. This bus seats
sixty-nine passengers— thirty on the lower deck and thirty-nine above—and
weighs 10,850 lb., including 40 gal. of gasoline, or 157.25 lb. per seat. In
addition to the large seating capacity and low weight, this new bus also
differs from the buses previously in use by the company in that the
conventional rear axle drive is employed instead of the tractor type. The
bus is equipped with the same 35-hp. Knight motor manufactured by the R. &
V. Motor Company, Moline, Ill., on which the company has practically
standardized.
“The use of a specially designed rear axle with the
worm mounted underneath made possible an unladen floor height of 29½ in. if
34-in. wheels are used. The rear platform, however, is but 18 in. above the
pavement, unloaded, and 14½ in. with the bus fully loaded. The step from
platform to bus floor is 11½ in. The stair steps leading to the upper deck
are 9½ in. and the stair width is 21 in. The entrance to the lower deck is
in the center of the rear end, instead of at the side, as on the former
Chicago buses, and the stairway to the upper deck is of an open design
rather than closed. The earlier buses with which comparison is made were
fully described in January issue of Bus Transportation. The arrangement of
seats on the lower deck is so laid out that a well is formed at the rear, in
addition to the rear platform, providing standing room and aiding in the
convenience of passenger interchange. The seats on the lower deck are rattan
covered with spring cushions and spring backs. This is a new feature for
Chicago buses, which adds substantially to the comfort of passengers. The
aisle width on both upper and lower decks has also been increased and this
also makes the new bus more convenient. The seats on the upper deck are of
course of the slat type on account of their exposure to the weather.
The headroom is 71 in., which is 2 in. more than in the
inclosed upper-deck buses. The interior lighting is provided with seven
15-cp. lamps on a 12-volt circuit, with one additional platform lamp, no
fixtures being used.
“The roof is made of 3/8-in. tongue and groove pine
with ¼-in. maple floor strips running longitudinally; the intermediate
carlines used heretofore are omitted. In other respects the detail
structural design is similar to that used in the inclosed upper-deck buses.
“With a 190-in. wheelbase, the body is mounted on a
chassis frame made up of two 7-in., 9¾ -lb. channels for the side members
and a 7-in. cross channel in front, an 8-in. cross channel at the rear and
6-in. intermediate cross channels with a double Z-shaped pressed cross
member, located about 6 ft. back from the front end, to support the clutch
and brake pedal brackets, gear shift, etc. Where the maximum bending moment
takes place the side members are reinforced by 6-in. ¼-in. steel pressings
with 3-in. flanges. These are riveted to the inside of the channels and
extend from a point about 3 ft. from the front end to a point about 12 ft.
from the front end. The side frames are offset 8 7/8-in. over the rear axle
and 3 in. at the front end.
“One of the notable features of this bus is its
excellent riding quality. As the bus is equipped with solid tires all
around, this has been accomplished entirely in designing the springs. The
rear springs are of the split or progressive type whereby good resiliency is
obtained at light loads, with adequate spring capacity for heavy loads.
These springs were furnished by the Mather Company, Toledo, Ohio, and are
made of chrome vanadium steel. They are 60 in. long and 4 in. wide and the
leaves are graduated from 7/16 in. to 5/16 in. in the top section and from ½
in. to 3/8 in. in the lower section. The top section contains thirteen
leaves and the bottom three. The front springs are of the ordinary type, 46
in. long and 3 in. wide.
“For the progressive type rear spring the flexibility,
as measured in pounds load per inch of deflection, is 900 under light loads,
and this is graduated up to 1,100 lb. when loaded. The result is a riding
quality that is causing much favorable comment.
“To return to the consideration of weight, the
distribution of 6,500 lb. on the rear wheels and 4,350 on the front wheels.
This is just under 60 per cent on the rear wheels. Calculating the
distribution of the live load, seventy-one people averaging 140 lb. each
would make the total live load 9,940 lb. of which 7,000 lb. would be added
to the rear wheel load and 2,940 lb. to the front wheels. This brings the
total load on the rear wheels up to 65 per cent.
“As shown in the article in the January issue of BUS
TRANSPORTATION. The inclosed top vehicle has been a substantially better
revenue producer that the open-top buses formerly used. Besides the inclosed top it has a
seating capacity of sixty as compared to fifty-one for the open-top buses.
With the necessity to use open-top buses on the South Side, it was
considered that a larger seating capacity, permitting bigger loads on fair
weather days, might offset the advantage of the inclosed-top bus in carrying
more passengers on bad-weather days. From the experience of this bus in
service on the North Side for the fifteen days from March 16 to March 31, in
comparison with the first fifty-one-passenger open-top bus preceding and
following the new bus, and with the first inclosed-top sixty passenger bus
preceding and following the new bus, the reasoning as to earning power of
the new bus seems to be justified. The excellent riding qualities of the bus
are undoubtedly a factor in this showing also. The figures in the table
below are given in the order in which the buses were scheduled.
“The average earnings per mile of the two fifty-one
passenger open-top buses was 39.4 cents and of the two inclosed-top buses
was 42.4 cents, which are compared with the 50.6 cents per mile earnings of
the bus.
“This bus was designed by C.O. Ball, general manager
and chief engineer, American Motor Bus Corporation, Chicago, which is
affiliated with the Chicago Motor Bus Company.”
| |
open top |
closed top |
new bus |
open top |
closed top |
| Seating capacity |
51 |
60 |
69 |
51 |
60 |
| Trips |
136 |
136 |
136 |
136 |
136 |
| Bus Miles |
2278.8 |
2264.6 |
2278.2 |
2319.9 |
2368.7 |
| Revenue per mile, cents |
40.6 |
41.5 |
50.6 |
38.1 |
43.2 |
Chicago Motor Coach – earliest buses (1917-1929)
| bus number |
manufacturer |
year built |
style |
| 101-152 |
CMC Shops / St. Louis Car |
1917-19 |
double deck |
| 153-175 |
American Motor Bus |
1922 |
double deck |
October 11, 1922 New York Times:
“QUITS COACH COMPANY HERE; J.A. Ritchie to Become Head of Chicago Motor Bus Lines.
“The resignation of John A. Ritchie as President of the Fifth Avenue Coach
Company was announced yesterday. Mr. Ritchie will go to Chicago to become
head of the recently organized Chicago Motor Bus Company. Associated with
him in the reorganized company will be John Hertz, President of the Yellow
Taxi Company of Chicago; Charles McCullough, a Chicago banker, and William
Wrigley Jr., the chewing gum manufacturer.
“Mr. Ritchie has been President of the Fifth Avenue Coach Company since April,
1918. Before that he was operating statistician for the Interborough subway,
elevated and surface lines, having been brought by the late Theodore P.
Shonts, when President of the Interborough, from the Illinois Central
Railroad.”
October 1922 Bus Transportation:
“Lake Shore Motor Bus Company Changes Hands.; Influential Chicagoans Take Financial
Control—Will Extend Activities to Cover North, South and West Sides of City
“FINANCIAL control of the Lake Shore Motor Bus Company, the holding company for the
Chicago Motor Bus Company and the American Motor Bus Company, the operating
and manufacturing company respectively, has been secured by John D. Hertz,
president of the Yellow Cab Company; Charles A. McCulloch, president of the
Parmalee Transfer Company and also vice-president of the Yellow Cab
Manufacturing Company, and other influential and progressive Chicagoans.
Among these are W. H. Wrigley, Jr., of chewing gum fame. John A. Ritchie,
who has been president of the Fifth Avenue Coach Company of New York City
since 1918, has been elected president, general manager and a director of
the company. As Bus Transportation was being sent to press it was announced
that Col. G. A. Green of the Fifth Avenue Company would also join the
Chicago company. The present organization of the two underlying companies
will be kept practically intact. Greatly increased service is to be given on
the present routes and new lines are to be opened.
“With service over all of the routes contemplated 300 buses will be in operation.
These, as a combination of the L type coach of the Fifth Avenue Company and
the latest open-top double-deck model of the Chicago Motor Bus Company, are
to be of an improved low-level design, worm driven, with chain-driven
transmission. The engine will be a vastly improved Moline-Knight. The
double-deck coaches are to seat sixty-eight. In addition to the
double-deckers the company will also use between twenty-five and thirty
one-man high-speed single-deck buses chiefly as feeders to the trunk lines.
“Present operating plans call for 70 miles of route on the south side, 40 miles on
the west side and 30 on the north side. The main lines will run direct to
the Loop district and the fare will be 10 cents. No transfers will be issued
except from short line to long line buses.
"Hearings have already been started before the Public Service Commission on the
application for permits to operate over the new routes mentioned above. The
statement was made by officials that the newly organized company would spend
$3,500,000 in perfecting its operations.”
October 1922 Bus Transportation:
“J. A. Ritchie Leaves Fifth Avenue Coach Company.; President of New York Concern, Famous
for His Civility Campaign, Will Head Chicago Motor Bus Company
“JOHN A. RITCHIE, president since April, 1918, of the Fifth Avenue Coach Company, New
York, N. Y., and the man who first introduced 'Civility' into a public
utility corporation and made it a popular byword, has resigned to become
head of the recently reorganized Chicago Motor Bus Company. The departure of
Mr. Ritchie for Chicago removes one of the outstanding figures in
transportation developments of New York City.
“The Chicago company has been organized to conduct a bus transportation system on
a scale larger than has ever been undertaken by a corporation in this
country, and Mr. Ritchie, as president of the new company, will occupy an
important position in the field of motor coach transportation.
“The Chicago Motor Bus Company will be the operating company. Its coaches will be
manufactured by the American Motor Bus Company, a subsidiary, of which Mr.
Ritchie also will be the head. The company possesses franchises to operate
its coaches over more than 70 miles of Chicago streets at a 10-cent fare.
Dispatches from Chicago state that the Chicago Motor Bus Company has been
capitalized at $3,000,000 and that an equally large amount will be expended
in manufacturing motor coaches of the general design of the Fifth Avenue
company coach, but of an improved type and possessing greater seating
capacity.
“Associated with Mr. Ritchie in the new company will be John Hertz, president of the
Yellow Taxi Company of Chicago; Charles A. McCullough. Chicago banker;
William Wrigley, Jr., the chewing gum man, and others.
“The present equipment of the Chicago Motor Bus Company will be utilized until
the new coaches are ready to go into service. The building program calls for
300 coaches in a year.
“Civility, a new theme in business and social relations, was introduced into the Fifth
Avenue Coach Company when Mr. Ritchie, a man in the early forties, became
president of the company. Previous to that, Mr. Ritchie had been operating
statistician of the subway, elevated railroad and surface car lines of New
York City, under the presidency of the late Theodore P. Shonts. Mr. Shonts
‘found’ Mr. Ritchie back in 1908 when the latter was connected with the
Illinois Central Railroad as investigator of accounts. Mr. Ritchie entered
the transportation business in his youth.
“Mr. Ritchie assumed charge of the Fifth Avenue Coach Company at a time when
every industrial enterprise in the country was beset by labor difficulties
as a result of the European war. As president his first aim was to establish
the most cordial relations with his employees, from the man on the coach up.
The word ‘boss’ soon disappeared from the vocabulary of the Fifth Avenue
Coach man. Mr. Ritchie adopted the policy of an open door to all, ever being
ready to listen to the complaint or suggestion of the most humble.
"Mr. Ritchie's next move was to arouse in the public mind a wholesome respect for
the courteous service of the men on the coaches and the degree of his
success in this respect is best reflected by the reports for August, which
show that there was but one complaint of incivility to every 996,310
passengers carried during the month. His most recent innovation in
transportation was the substituting of name plates for numbers on the
blouses of the coach men so the public might know with whom they were
riding. This change evoked considerable favorable comment from the public.
“Corporations throughout the country and educational institutions of every
variety joined with Mr. Ritchie in a universal appeal for a more general
practice of every-day courtesy. The civility campaigns conducted under his
personal supervision started a flood of public comment which resulted in the
compilation and publication of a series of pamphlets on the subject which
are considered as among the best ever issued by a public service
corporation. Some of these pamphlets now are in the libraries of virtually
every city in the country and the most recent of these, ‘A Harvest of
Thoughts on Civility,’ created such demand that the edition was exhausted
over night, and requests by mail became so numerous that filling them became
a virtual impossibility.
“An extended biographical sketch of Mr. Ritchie was published in Bus
Transportation for February, page 148. Further details of the reorganization
of the Chicago Motor Bus Company will be found elsewhere in this issue. Just
as Bus Transportation went to press it was announced that Col. G. A. Green,
vice-president and general manager of the Fifth Avenue Company, would also
join Mr. Ritchie in Chicago.”
November 1922 Bus Transportation:
“Chicago Company Stresses Direct Communication — Experts' Traffic Study Shows City's
Greatest Increase on South Side”
“THE Chicago (Ill.) Motor Bus Company which was recently reorganized by financial
interests with which are identified John Hertz, president of the Yellow Cab
Company, and Charles A. McCulloch, president of the Parmelee Transfer
Company, has presented its reason why it should be granted a certificate of
convenience and necessity by the Illinois Commerce Commission in hearings
which were held on Oct 10 and on Oct. 25, 26 and 27. The routes under
consideration are those leading from the Loop district to the south side
over the boulevard and passing through and adjacent to the parks in that
district.
“The new company has already obtained a franchise to operate through the parks and
boulevards under the jurisdiction of the South Park Board. The hearing will
be concluded on Nov. 6 and it is expected that if the certificate is granted
operation will begin from two to three weeks after that date.
“In seeking its certificate, the company introduced evidence by which it sought to show
that the proposed bus service will provide direct accommodation along the
boulevards and will provide more rapid, convenient and comfortable service
to and from the loop district for certain residential districts not now
conveniently served. Another contention was that it would afford an
opportunity for pleasure riding to that part of the population which does
not own motor cars, and it will particularly make available the advantages
of the parks and boulevard system. The extent of pleasure riding was shown
by figures of the north side lines of the Chicago Motor Bus Company and also
from records of the Fifth Avenue Coach Company. It was also demonstrated
that operation of a route proposed would not be injurious to the traffic of
the Chicago Surface Lines or the Chicago Elevated Railroad.
“To show the financial soundness of the new company, John D. Hertz, president of the
Yellow Cab Company, pledged the bus line to an expenditure of $3,500,000
which is already available. He placed himself on record as a witness before
the commission to this effect.
“As announced in Bus Transportation last month, John A. Ritchie and Col. George
A. Green have resigned from the Fifth Avenue Coach Company to take active
charge of the new Chicago Motor Bus Company, although it is understood that
both Mr. Hertz and Mr. McCulloch will take a prominent part in the
management of the concern. Mr. Ritchie, who has resigned as president of the
Fifth Avenue Coach Company, has been made president and general manager of
the new company, while Colonel Green has left his position as engineering
chief of that corporation to become vice-president and manager.
“Mr. Ritchie has testified before the commission that the general method of
conduct of the company will be along the lines of that of the Fifth Avenue
Coach Company. In his testimony, Colonel Green, who has made a life study of
bus transportation in this country and abroad, said that Chicago offers the
greatest opportunity for a bus transportation system of any city that he
knew. He said that he hoped to be able to give Chicago even better service
than is operated in either New York or London. The plan, he explained, calls
for two types of buses, one of the double-deck type carrying sixty-eight
passengers and the other a single-decker carrying twenty-five passengers.
“Feasibility Of Bus Service Determined By Traffic Study
“To show the feasibility, convenience and necessity of bus operation on the proposed
route, the Chicago Motor Bus Company engaged Ford, Bacon & Davis, Inc.,
consulting engineers, to make a detailed traffic and transportation study.
The results of these studies were introduced as evidence of why the
certificate should be granted. In this survey it was shown that in the
decade 1910 to 1920 the population of the south side of Chicago increased at
a greater rate than that of the city as a whole, the rate of increase being
27.3 per cent for the south side and 23.6 per cent for the city. Moreover,
of the total population increase in that period, namely, about 560,000, more
than 40 per cent was on the south side. The result of the traffic study was
that although Michigan Avenue is congested at present, the introduction of
bus service would possibly increase that congestion by 3 or 4 per cent while
the boulevard would be made available to a very large number of people. The
fact that bus service would be a prominent factor in the conversion of south
Michigan Avenue into a high-class shopping district was brought up as a
point to show why the certificate should be granted.”
November 1922 Bus Transportation:
“G. A. Green in Chicago.; Noted Automotive Engineer Resigns from
Fifth Avenue Company to Assume Position of Vice-President and Manager of Chicago
Motor Bus Company and American Motor Bus Manufacturing Company
“IF EVER a man was a step ahead of the events in the engineering industry of which he
is a part, George A. Green, the new vice-president and manager of the
Chicago Motor Bus Company and the American Motor Bus Manufacturing Company,
is that man. In these companies Mr. Green will again be associated with John
A. Ritchie, both Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Green having resigned from the Fifth
Avenue Coach Company, New York, to go to Chicago.
“Necessarily there is a community of interest existing between the two men
so long associated in one enterprise, but that alone could not have held
them together in New York or induced Mr. Green to cast his fortunes and his
future with Mr. Ritchie in Chicago. It was more than that. It was
opportunity. Opportunity held them together in New York and opportunity for
both of them has induced them to go to Chicago—opportunity for Mr. Ritchie
to apply to Chicago on an even bigger scale than he did in New York ideas of
management and personnel which have put the New York company in the
forefront of transportation organizations the world over, and for Mr. Green
opportunity to apply and extend ideas which he has about bus construction
and maintenance.
“Originality And Initiative Are Predominant Characteristics
“Long before anybody else in this country had begun to formulate ideas as to what
a bus should be George A. Green had worked out for himself a series of
axioms that has since come to be generally accepted as necessary to insure
the best operating results for large-scale bus systems. It was he
undoubtedly who arrived first at definite conclusions regarding the
necessity for light-weight buses; regarding the question of the low center
of gravity of the bus, the proper gear ratios, the best widths for frames
and springs and wheel tracks; the turning radius and the need for ease in
steering. He reduced to a science the matter of analyzing and recording
breakages and equipment failures. He also was quick to realize that
centralized unit repairs were essential for economy. His ideal of the true
bus is to give Pullman car service under unified control at a 10 cent fare.
“Mr. Green thinks in large units. Having done so much to perfect the bus mechanically,
Mr. Green has shown that greater mechanical perfection must be accompanied
by operation which has behind it the idea of securing greater gasoline
efficiency. He has said the latter, where the human element enters, is even
more difficult to attain than mechanical perfection. The best thoughts of
Mr. Green along these and kindred lines were packed by him into a paper
which he read before the Society of Automotive Engineers more than two years
ago. It is pronounced by men in the automotive industry to be a classic. In
addition to all this is the work done by Mr. Green in collaboration with
Ricardo, the noted English automotive engineer. The results of this work
were embodied in a paper also presented before the Society of Automotive
Engineers.
“Proved His Problems Before He Talked About Them
“Mr. Green has, however, looked beyond the mechanics of the matter. He is what might be
termed the engineer plus. His work toward perfecting the bus mechanically
has not so engrossed him that he has not seen the bus problem in its larger
province as a transportation agency. Mr. Green has pronounced views about
fares, personnel and other matters that the outsider might think were beyond
his personal field. These he has likewise embodied in papers presented
before engineering and transportation bodies, where they have been put to
the acid test by transportation men sometimes none too friendly to the bus
as a transportation agent. In other words, George A. Green's conclusions
ring true because as a scientist he proves things before he talks about them.
“Mr. Green a Trained Engineer
“As a foundation of all the work that he has done Mr. Green has back of him a
thorough training in engineering coupled with an apprenticeship in the shop
and in the field that it is within the grasp of very few men to attain. Thus
is an idea conveyed of the fund of information and knowledge which Mr. Green
will be able to apply to the problems that come up in Chicago, first, in
actual operation of the vehicles on the street and then in the manufacturing
activities of the American Motor Bus Manufacturing Company. Other aspects of
the remarkable career of the man were reviewed in Bus Transportation last
February.”
November 1922 Bus Transportation:
“Chicago (Ill.) Motor Bus Company has purchased nine ‘L’ type coaches and one ‘J’
type coach from the Fifth Avenue Coach Company, New York City. J. J.
Gerlach, Pittsburgh, Pa., has purchased one ‘L’ type coach from the Fifth
Avenue Coach Company. New York City. This is the second ‘L’ type purchased
by him.”
November 16, 1922 New York Times:
“FRIEND TRIED TO GET HYLAN BUS PERMIT; Head of Black
Diamond Auto Concern Tells of Seeking to Interest the Mayor. ACTED FOR
ANOTHER FIRM Denies Discussing Financing the Enterprise With the City's
Executive. STICKS TO TESTIMONY Recalled at Hearing That Hylan Was Once
Counsel for Black Diamond Company.
“Charles S. Turner, former Vice President and General
Manager of the Black Diamond Automobile Company, of which Mayor Hylan was
counsel, testified yesterday before the Transit Commission that he had been
in conference with Mayor Hylan at City Hall following his examination before
the Transit Commission….”
Roland R. Conklin was the person interested in getting
the bus permit, and he gave the following testimony detailing the
organization of his various bus operations:
“Mr. Conklin, the first witness at the session, said he
lived in Huntington, L.I., that the New York Motor Bus Company, of which he
was President, was incorporated in 1921; that the amount of stock issued was
$16,000, and that the amount authorized was $500,000; that he had operated
bus lines in Chicago and Havana, Cuba, and that he organized the American
Motor Bus Corporation, a bus manufacturing concern, with $200,000 capital
stock.”
December 1922 Bus Transportation:
“Plant Capacity Being Increased
“Reports from Chicago state that the capacity of the
cab factory of the Yellow Cab Manufacturing Company is being increased 50
per cent, while the general plant is being increased another 50 per cent- in
preparation for the manufacture of buses by the American Motor
Bus Manufacturing Company for the new Chicago Motor Bus Company.”
The July, 1924 issue of The Motorman and Conductor
contained an article from the July 16, New York Times:
“Chicago - July 15 – Plans embracing the extension of
motor coach operation to urban and rural communities in every part of the
United States are being made by the Omnibus Corporation of America,
according to a statement made today by John Hertz, chairman of the board of
directors. The corporation is a consolidation of the Fifth Avenue Coach
Company of New York and the Chicago Motor Coach company.
“Mr. Hertz said that it was not the purpose of the
corporation to enter into competition with street car companies or
railroads, but to work with them for the rehabilitation of street car
companies or parts of railroads in sections were the service was now
inadequate.”
An unrelated firm, American Motor Coach Co. was organized in 1925 to
produce medium-sized buses on extended Ford Model TT chassis. A 1925 issue
of Better Buses announced the firm's incorporation:
"New Incorporations: Wilmington, De — American Motor
Coach Co. Capital $100,000."
A concurrent issue of Bus Transportation revealed a few more details of
the new firm:
“The American Motor Coach Company, Inc., 9 East 40th
St, New York City, has been formed to produce complete buses, mounting
bodies on an extended Ford chassis. T.L. Hauseman is president, C.B.
Jennison vice president and Arthur Kooman secretary and treasurer of the new
company. Temporarily, the product will be made up by the Bethlehem Motors
Corporation ….
"The buses are to be mounted on extended 1-ton Ford Model TT
chassis. The 12-16 passenger coaches
include seats upholstered in dark brown imitation leather."
The American Motor Coach Company was short-lived although Bethlehem
Motors remained involved in the truck body business for a few more years.
(Clarence Edwards was the chief draftsman of the Bethlehem Motors
Corporation, Allentown, Pa. & Pottstown, Pa. In 1927 Bethlehem was taken
over by the Hahn Motor Truck Co., and the new firm was reorganized as the Hahn Motor Truck Corporation,
Allentown, Pa.
January 3, 1938 New York Times:
"R. R. CONKLIN DIES; RETIRED FINANCIER; Began Career in
Real Estate in Kansas City-Also Had Been Active in Cuba HEADED UTILITY
GROUPS Former Executive of the North American Trust Co. - Was a Motor Bus
Advocate.; Was Active in Cuba Had 'Motor Land Yacht'
“Roland Ray Conklin, retired capitalist and promoter,
died yesterday in the Lenox Hill Hospital of pneumonia at the age of 79.
Since 1922 he had not been active in business. In 1924 he sold his large
estate, Rosemary Farm, at Huntington, L. I. Recently he had been living at
82 Washington Place.
“Born at Urbana, Ill., Mr. Conklin was a descendant of
the English-Scotch John Conklin who settled on the north shore of Long
Island in 1640. His father, grandfather and great-grandfather were born at
Huntington, L.I.
“Working his way through college, Mr. Conklin was
graduated from the University of Illinois in 1880 and two years later was at
the head of one of the largest realty firms in Kansas City, Kan. His
interests spread widely in the West, including irrigation canals, water
works and electric street railways, and in 1893 he moved the headquarters of
his firm to New York, in time to be forced into liquidation by the panic of
that year.
“Reorganizing as the North American Trust Company, Mr.
Conklin engaged in a general banking business and in 1898 the company was
appointed fiscal agent for the United States Government in Cuba. Mr. Conklin
was vice president of the North American, 1896-99.
“Was Active in Cuba
“With the year 1900 Mr. Conklin began a series of
undertakings tending to the development of Cuba. He was one of the principal
organizers of the National Bank of Cuba and the Havana Telephone Company, a
founder and president of the Cuban Telephone Company, vice president of the
Central Cuba Sugar Company, president of the Jucaro & Motor Railway Company,
and an organizer of the National Railways Company of Cuba.
“Later he established himself in New York and bought
the estate at Huntington, L.I., which is now occupied by the Roman Catholic
Seminary of the Immaculate Conception. For two years he was president of the
Huntington Association, representing the interests of property owners in
Huntington and Cold Spring Harbor.
“Mr. Conklin was founder and developer of Roland Park
in Baltimore and of Euclid Park in Cleveland, an organizer and former
president of the Chicago Motorbus Company. He was a great believer in the
motorbus as destined to replace trolleys in city streets and as a means of
transportation across country. Before trailers were thought of he had
trailer ideas.
“Had Motor Land Yacht.
“In the Summer of 1915 he and his wife, the former Mary
Macfadden, a sister of Bernarr Macfadden, and six others, set out from
Huntington for the Panama-Pacific Exposition in a conveyance of their own
design variously described by observers as a ‘Gypsy Van,’ a ‘kitchenette
flat on wheels,’ and a ‘motor land yacht.’
“The pictures of the vehicle suggest a Fifth Avenue bus
of the next to last model with a roof garden on top. But the homelike
equipment of the bus equaled all but the most luxurious of today’s trailers.
“Among the clubs to which Mr. Conklin had belonged were
the Lotos, Coffee House and Huntington Country. Mrs. Conklin died in 1919.
Three children survive; Julia and Rosemary Conklin of this city and Roland
H. Conklin of Los Angeles.
“Services will be held at 2 P.M. tomorrow in Christ
Church, Sixtieth and Park Ave.”
© 2004 Mark Theobald - Coachbuilt.com
|
|
|
